Re: Guile: What's wrong with this?

[Bruce Korb]

On 01/03/12 15:33, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Could you point me to the affected code?  What would you think of using
> string-copy as I suggested?  The disadvantage is that you need to modify
> your code, but hopefully that can be automated with a sed script or so;
> the advantage is that it would work with all versions of Guile.

The disadvantage is that I know I have "clients" that have rolled their
own templates, presumably by copy-and-edit processes that will invariably
include (define var "string") syntax.  Likely a better approach is to
re-define the "define" function to my own C code and call the    proper
scm_whathaveyou functions under the covers.

I'm sorry about being irritable.  This is the third problem with 2.x.
First a pre-defined value disappeared.  A very minor nuisance.
Then it turned out that the string functions would now clear the
high order bit on strings, so they are no longer byte arrays and
there is no replacement but to roll my own.  I stopped supporting
byte arrays.  A noticable nuisance.

Now it turns out that the conventional, ordinary way of creating
a string variable yields a read-only string.  Ouch.  So I am cranky
and sorry about being so.

So I guess that's my fix.  Write another function dependent
upon Guile internals, much like scm_c_eval_string_from_file_line(),
by copying scm_define() code, checking for a string value and copying
that string -- if it is read-only?  Should I check for that?

What about "set!"?  Should I check for a read-only value there, too?
I do confess it feels a little bit like unraveling something.....It is scary.